ArticleBMJ open2026
How prognostic information influences care planning in adult intensive care units: protocol for a realist review.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrognostic information plays a key role in decision-making in adult intensive care units (ICUs), but its influence on advance care planning, treatment limitation and palliative-care integration depends on organisational, legal, cultural and relational factors. This review focuses on how prognostic information is used in decision-making processes. This realist review will explore how, why, for whom and in which ICU contexts prognostic information impacts care planning. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses (RAMESES) publication standards for realist syntheses, we will iteratively develop an initial programme theory (IPT) and refine context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations through staged database and grey literature searches, selecting sources based on relevance and rigour, performing theory-driven extraction and applying realist synthesis strategies (juxtaposition, reconciliation, adjudication and consolidation). Stakeholders, including ICU and palliative care clinicians, caregiver representatives and ethics/policy advisors, will contribute to shaping IPT development, CMO refinement and interpretation. Reporting will also adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines; the completed checklist is provided as Supplementary File S1. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required (secondary analysis). DISSEMINATION: Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and stakeholder-targeted briefs for clinicians, policymakers and professional bodies. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF: https://osf.io/6qu8x).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.